1 / 14

DRIVER Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision of European Research

DRIVER Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision of European Research. Guidelines for Content Providers. Presented by Martin Feijen, SURF [NL]. Starting-points DRIVER test-bed. Digital textual resources (articles) Open access (no “toll gates”) Ease of access for the user (one click)

yestin
Download Presentation

DRIVER Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision of European Research

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DRIVERDigital Repository Infrastructure Vision of European Research Guidelines for Content Providers Presented by Martin Feijen, SURF [NL]

  2. Starting-points DRIVER test-bed • Digital textual resources (articles) • Open access (no “toll gates”) • Ease of access for the user (one click) • Metadata record AND full text • Use of standards like OAI-PMH • Acknowledgement of local policies and know how

  3. Volume Scenario • “Harvest all you can get” • weak guidelines • a number of minimum level requirements of the DINI certificate • a combination of DINI/SURF/DLF requirements for use of OAI-PMH • enables almost everyone to participate • minimizes work for content providers • could result in problems (DARE experience) • Protocol example: 3 different types of information about deleted records: none, transient and persistent. Large harvesting efforts, sometimes only full re-harvest helps. • Metadata example: The use of the elements identifier, source and relation for scientific articles that are preprints, post prints or scanned versions of paper editions. Without a clear choice multiple local metadata mappings, causing end-user confusion.

  4. Quality Scenario • “Harvest only selected content” • strong guidelines • All mandatory requirements of the DINI certificate • All mandatory DINI/SURF/DLF requirements for use of OAI-PMH • Mandatory use of detailed metadata instructions • Mandatory use of a resource harvesting solution (e.g. xml-container of SURF) • A hurdle for providers to participate • More work for content providers • But will prevent problems

  5. Graded Scenario • “Harvest all, but boost high quality” • differentiate requirements from recommendations • enables almost everyone to participate • allows content providers to “upgrade” from content providers to advanced providers • functionally inherent incentive: some added value services are only for advanced providers • Mix of guidelines and data conversion

  6. Why use guidelines? • For new repositories: to provide orientation and support • For existing repositories: to co-create enhanced services • For developers: to co-create supporting functionalities DRIVER wants to aim for the highest possible service quality in scholarly communication

  7. What if we don’t use guidelines? • less reliable overall quality: mix of metadata only records, open access records and toll gated records • “free” metadata  cleaning and mapping in aggregator module (on a permanent basis?) • “free” protocol  numerous and persistent quality issues for DRIVER services • No xml container  FTI more difficult, end user confusion in resource access, difficult handling of multi-file resources like thesis

  8. Existing results within SURF • DAREnet: 115.000 open access resources • E-Depot: 110.000 records in Royal Library long term preservation system • Promise of Science: doctoral thesis • Knowledgebank: master thesis • Full text indexing • Resource harvesting of multipart resources via OAI-PMH • Digital author identifiers (in progress) • But more work needs to be done

  9. Guidelines: resources • DINI with modifications • DARE with modifications • Practical experiences from HAL (France), Base (Germany), SURF (Netherlands) with harvesting and service creation

  10. Guidelines: main components Minimum standard Metadata guidelines Overall guidelines OAI-PMHl guidelines Based on DARE, HAL, BASE Based on Eprints guidelines Based on DINI, DARE, HAL, DLF recommended

  11. How to comply? Or not? • Level 1: meets some items  may lead to limitations in services for user • Level 2: meets mandatory items  more services for user • Level 3: meets recommended items  full potential of services for user

  12. A lot of work? • Depends on local situation • Depends on willingness of developers to implement supporting functionalities • DARE experience: it’s a limited effort with great results • It’s worth it!

  13. Will there be support? YES!!! • A support helpdesk (phone) • A support website with tools to help implementation of the guidelines

  14. In conclusion • Our commitment is to help you to improve scholarly communication for your users. Guidelines are a tool to reach this goal.

More Related